Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Account
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - Full Reaction (Patreon)

Published:
2025-01-05 07:36:32
Edited:
2025-01-05 16:59:18
Imported:
2025-01
Tags:

Content

Okay guys, I don't want to spoil the reaction to much but Bones, Spock and Kirk were fantastic! And Scotty?!??? I love that they are nodding to the original series while putting their own spin and flair on the stories and characters!

Direct link.

Find your own copy.

Download this reaction.

Files

[Full Reaction] Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Comments

AdrianF

People give the antagonist grief, but this is the best of the trilogy for me.

Wes

Meh šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

Bill Maurer

The best of the new Star Trek movies. Benedict Cumberbatch is great, as always Glad you enjoyed it

Night King01

I think a lot of the problems I have with this movie is Khan as the villain. Other than his name he doesnt really act like him and he shouldnt have been the villain. Admiral marcus would have been a good villain. Just make cumberbatch John Harrison. The whole dilemma with marcusā€™ vision for starfleet would have been a great conflict but spectacle was the goal so forget that. Also Klingonā€™s just looked dumb. And the whole khan reveal is finny because him revealing his name is literally for the audience. They have no idea who that but they treat it as this big reveal with their reactions. The whole problem with these films for me was the scripts. Perfect casting but the films were clearly used as a dry run for JJ to get star wars, and star trek is not star wars.

Anthony Carlson

This was not bad, but certainly some of the choices could have been better. Question: Do you think Benedict Cumberbatch could have benefited playing an original character instead of playing [redacted]?

Rick Rodriguez

Having not watched the reaction yet...I can't wait. As a Trek fan fan I am a semi defender of the movie. Which has me ridiculed quite a bit. I think the prologue is bad, the end of act 1 gets it together, Act 2 is underrated and compelling. Beginning of act 3 is still good but once the enterprise...well the earth section just goes off the rails. Actors, score, cinematography, production design are great.

V M

Cassie still sick. Dang.

rakesh

Time for a Sherlock watch methinks

Night King01
>>160342075

Especially when its literally hidden for the audience since his name would mean nothing to the characters in the film.

Anthony Carlson
>>160342078

I know, Iā€™m saying could he pull it off playing an original character instead of [redacted]?

Stick Figure Studios

Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm guessing you really enjoyed it. I get it. I enjoyed it too when I saw it in the theater even though the more I thought about it afterwards, the dumber it got. There is literally no reason whatsoever for Benedict Cumberbatch's character to be revealed as "you know who." It makes no sense in the context of the scene, means nothing to the other characters. It's purely for the audience. Also, the development at the end of being able to resurrect people is one of the stupidest things they could've done (and they wisely ignored it for the best movie). Oh, and Abrams' finally hit critical mass with his use of lens flares. For my money, it is the worst of the new trilogy, but not entirely unenjoyable and it was cool to see Peter Weller (a.k.a. RoboCop) in the novie... and the cameo by the original Trek actor was nice. Looking forward to this reaction. Just one more to go.

YodatheHobbit

I was about to watch the MI Dead Reckoning Full Reaction, gonna switch to this instead because it's been longer since I've seen it last. Even though I'm not very much into Star Trek although I enjoy both the old and new films, I'm the most I've ever been into it because watching Cassie get HOOKED into being a Treky has been so much fun to witness. Both watching and rewatching films has finally helped me understand the timeline and alternate timelines of what relatively small and basics branches of Trek I've seen (Most of first Season of original show, a few random episodes of other seasons, most of the original films, half of the Picard films, and 2/3rds of the J.J. films)

Anthony Perez

Ok...I'm in Chicago, it's 157am. I have a few chores to do in morning..it's going to be freezing. But now I have this reaction to look forward to. Thanks Cassie! Hope you get better soon. I've had a cold,off and on,for almost two months. Stay Strong.

Neighbourhood Watch Alliance

This film divides the OG Trekkies from the modern audience; Into Darkness is one of the top-rated Treks on IMDB but voted the Worst Star Trek Movie by fans at Creation Entertainment's annual Las Vegas Star Trek convention in 2013...

Brian McGovern

This was done as fan service and had no meaning to the crew. The character carried very little weight to everyone except original Spock. There is a video on YT that goes into detail about this movie being THE WORST Star Trek movie of all. I own it on Apple, but I do not think I have seen it since I saw it at the movies or when it first was released on BluRay.

Rick Rodriguez
>>160342456

Weller is great to see. And is very good in the movie. He was in a Trek show prior.

GƔbor Ɓrki

As much as I liked the first entry, and consider it to be one of the best Star Trek films, this ended up being quite a disappointment. I had issues with it during my first watch in theater, but rewatching it just re-enforced this feeling. MOVIE SPOILERS AHEAD I think they managed to take the worst aspects of the first movie and dialed them to 11. The story is riddled with decisions that defy logic and common sense, if you start to think about them. Demoting a starship captain all the way back to being a cadet in the academy? Transporting to another far away solar system? If that is a possibility, why even have bother with starships at all? Curing death with Khan's blood? Does that mean immortality is now achievable for everyone? It feels like they disregarded coherence entirely, focusing solely on just finding any mean moving the plot from point A to point B, no matter how nonsensical it is or what the implications are. But my worst issue is the main plot. Traditionally, Starfleet and the Federation are depicted as aspirational entities, embodying principles of exploration, diplomacy, and unity in a future. The original Star Trek and its successors positioned these organizations as flawed but fundamentally ethical organizations, striving toward peace and cooperation, even if they had some rouge elements acting otherwise from time to time. They have been an ideal to strive towards. By contrast, Into Darkness makes them feel like a shadowy, militarized, fascistic institutions willing to sacrifice their core values for power. There have been other instances of featuring Section 31 and some moral dilemmas before, but those managed to handle the controversies much better and didn't ultimately alter the overall utopian perception of the Federation. Here, it just feels like to me they broke these lines and these organizations come off to be more cynical, reflecting a lot more on corruption and realpolitik of our lives than showing us some optimistic ideals to strive towards. And this is robbing Star Trek from one of its core values. Another major disappointment for me was Khan. I remember hearing rumors that this movie would be a remake of The Wrath of Khan, but the creators repeatedly denied it. Then, you sit down to watch it, only to realize the rumors were entirely true. On top of that, the creators seem to pat themselves on the back for supposedly subverting expectations by denying the movieā€™s actual premise. It occupies an odd and unsatisfying middle ground. It's more than just an homage but far from being a proper remake. Instead, it feels like an awkward attempt at something in between, coming across as if it's ripping off the original rather than honoring it. Add to that, the big reveal is kind of nonsensical. The name Khan had no meaning to anyone other than old time fans knowing the original movie. Cumberbatch should have shouted he is Santa Claus, and it would have more meaning to the crew of the Enterprise. Overall, I don't hate the movie, but I find it deeply disappointing. As a popcorn flick, itā€™s entertaining enough if you donā€™t think too hard about it. However, I expect more from Star Trek. After the solid foundation laid by the first installment, this sequel feels like a huge missed opportunity. Instead of building on that success to tell a more original story, they squandered it by forcing Khan into the narrative, which ultimately detracts from the potential of the new alternate timeline they opened.

Shawn Kildal

My brother and I, who are DIE HARD Star Trek TOS fans, saw this at the theater twice the day it opened and loved it. It was quite evident everyone at the theater loved by the rousing ovation once it concluded. Nothing will beat the original cast and crew of the Enterprise for me and many others, but I'm grateful for this as it sparked a new love and appreciation for future Trek fans. I'm still holding out hope for more.

GƔbor Ɓrki
>>160342456

Yeah, he is great. And I think it would have been a better movie with him being the main antagonist.

Shawn Kildal

In the TOS episode Space Seed when everyone was first introduced to Khan, Scotty told Kirk there was 72 other members of Khan's crew still alive. 72 was our first hint that it was Khan.

Shawn Kildal

In the event of a 4th movie, JJ Abrams has stated he wouldn't recast a new actor for Chekov.

Shawn Kildal

Dr. Carol Marcus from this movie is also the same character from The Wrath of Khan. She's Kirk's baby mama.

GƔbor Ɓrki
>>160342075

I agree. Marcus had the potential to be an excellent main villain. He could have been portrayed as someone attempting to seize control of Starfleet or the entire Federation for his own agenda. Or as a representative of Section 31, manipulating events to force the Federation into a course of action they would otherwise avoid. For instance, trying to engineer a war between the Klingons and the Federation, believing they had the upper hand now but might not in a decade. This could have introduced a moral dilemma at the story's core, whether itā€™s justifiable to betray the Federationā€™s core principles in pursuit of a perceived greater good. They could have taken so many other, and I think better routes than the one we got.

Roger Hagerty

nice reaction. This is my favorite amongst this Kelvin timeline (I think thats how these are classified). The next is my least favorite by a stretch.

Nathan Jasper, the Artist Formerly Known as Primary
>>160346960

There's always one. Title and rank being stripped away isn't anything new. Heck it's rare but it's happened in our own militaries. I doubt it was a regular thing. Transporting is a thing, assuming you know where you're going. Starships are necessary for exploring having no idea where you're going at all. Plus, transporting to a far away solar system most likely takes a massive amount of power and is only done in emergency situations. As for Khan's blood, once again, EMERGENCY situation. I highly doubt Starfleet would approve using a man as a blood bag for the entire human race. That'd be torture. So NO to that question. Starfleet is flawed and has its assholes just like everyone. That's even seen way back in TOS. They threatened Kirk's rank on several occasions in TOS and the subsequent films. They BECAME a better organization by the time TNG rolled around. And no, this is NOT a remake but rather a prequel, as you see Spock talk to his alternate self in an attempt to discover how to stop him. As I continually tell people, stop expecting things. Stop going into a film and expecting to get what you want. Expectation leads to bias and overthinking and unfair assessments.

Clarence Newman

I watched all three Kelvins in full a few months back so I'll wait for the YT edit on this one. I'm wondering which full reaction comes next. šŸ˜šŸ˜šŸ˜

Neighbourhood Watch Alliance
>>160343843

Not many do though, or it wouldn't have been voted worst Trek movie ever at the 2013 convention attended by actual Trekkies - the people that kept coming back for decades making the IP the brand that it is, that actually inspired a generally aspirational future for humanity Nobody is going to be remaking or rebooting Jar Trek in 30 years time, they might still be going back to Trek of the 60s - 90s when the IP had integrity and the stories had some intelligence

Caomhan84

I had a feeling she'd like it. Cassie seems to like everything related to Trek. And honestly, even though I have my issues with the movie, I'm glad she liked it. Watching it with her was more enjoyable. I was able to focus less on the issues that annoy me about it.

Caomhan84
>>160342078

I could have picked three Indian actors immediately off the top of my head that would've been better off playing "that role" than Benedict Cumberbatch. Back in 2013 it drove me crazy that they cast him in that role. I think he was fine in the movie. He just should have stayed John Harrison, rogue section 31 operative

Shawn Kildal

"Cassie out". I get it now.

Odd Thomas

I think the first 2 JJ Abrams movies are great. The third one is a different director and I found it very meh. A great Anton Yelchin movie is Odd Thomas (where I got my name from!)

Clay F
>>160347129

Standing ovation -- that's great. Definitely increased the Trek fan base.

Clay F

502,000 users at IMDb gave the movie an average rating of 7.7 Ranked by IMDb rating: 1. Star Trek (2009) 7.9 2. ST II (1982) 7.7 2. ST Into Darkness (2013) 7.7 4. ST IV (1986) 7.3 5. ST VI (1991) 7.2 6. ST III (1984) 6.6 7. ST (1979) 6.4 8. ST V (1989) 5.5

pbo

I really enjoyed the 1st movie and when i first saw this movie Kirk's demotion gave me hope for an interesting story developing the maturity and relationships of the new crew in a fun new adventure. Kirk was basically the equivalent of taking a 3rd year student at the navy academy (granted a gifted one) and giving him command of a super carrier and then being surprised he didn't have the experience and maturity to handle the complexity of that position. In TOS I think he was about 10 years into his career before he took command. I guess that is just a consequence if this being the action Star Trek But what we got was a vastly inferior wrath of kahn "remake" oddly jammed into this universe with a splash of Star Trek 6 Ala JJ Abrams style and bunch of plot points the break this universe IE Dont need star ships anymore, they have cured death so everyone is basicly Deadpool now I remember a quote from the Wrath of Kahn director saying he didn't want to make a space ship movie so he made a movie about people in a space ship. This feels like a movie about space ahips. I enjoyed the 1st movie and i would have loved another orginal story. Spoiler alert: that didnt work out so good in third movie either. JJ seams to go of the rails the longer the story goes. I'm sorry I just feel JJ is vastly over rated as a story teller Sorry for the rant. Loved your reaction as always

Clay F
>>160343858

502,000 users at IMDb gave the movie an average rating of 7.7 Ranked by IMDb rating: 1. Star Trek (2009) 7.9 2. ST II (1982) 7.7 2. ST Into Darkness (2013) 7.7 4. ST IV (1986) 7.3 5. ST VI (1991) 7.2 6. ST III (1984) 6.6 7. ST (1979) 6.4 8. ST V (1989) 5.5

Clay F
>>160343843

Yeah, those are the fans that William Shatner made fun of and are only a tiny minority of OG Trek fans. A majority of OG Trek fans like the Kelvin films and are grateful to Abrams for reinvigorating the franchise

Clay F

The most financially successful Star Trek movie in history. Liked by the mainstream and by the majority of established Trek fans or Trekkies. This movie and Star Trek (2009) reinvigorated the Star Trek franchise. Abrams reached a larger audience.

GƔbor Ɓrki
>>160351765

I consider it to be the biggest mistake of the first movie that they made Kirk captain. It was fine in the context of the events that he ended up in the captain's chair. But promoting him at the end of the movie, with the rest of the crew, seemed so premature and unrealistic. And I felt this decision robbed us from one or maybe two movies where we could have seen them maturing into their TOS ranks.

Neighbourhood Watch Alliance
>>160343843

Right the people who make Star Trek, Star Wars, and the MCU hate the fans and only do it for the money and as a vehicle to insert their politics and trash the 'outdated' past. The people that used to bully us for liking Star Trek are now in control of Star Trek. Abrams said himself he doesn't like Trek, they cannot understand what people like about it but know it's big so can purchase themselves a new house in Malibu by exploiting it And Trek has provably not been reinvigorated, arguably it looks in worse health than at any point since 1966

Irby

I definitely enjoyed the movie, and I think it does a great job showing the real problem with the "utopian" future star trek portrays, which is humans. Humans by their nature are covetous, power hungry and subject to corruption. Which is also sadly why the idea of communism will never work in the world. Can't wait to see your reaction to the 3rd film it's my favorite and in my opinion the most entertaining of the 3 new ones.

Luke Godfrey

I love this movie, and as expected so did Cassie. Her reaction to recognising Benedict Cumberbatch was priceless. Can't wait to she watch she makes of Star Trek: Beyond. Cassie, if you want to watch the new Section 31 movie when it comes out you'll need to watch the seasons 1-3 of Star Trek: Discovery first. Also, after season 2 of Discovery you'll be able to start watching Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, which is the PREQUEL to Star Trek: The Original Series. I know this is a lot of episodes to watch for the channel, but I guarantee if you watch them all you'll love both series.

Sophie Gallo

I love this one so much! And I think it's definitely the best out of the three.

Danny

Did you enjoy?

Anthony Oberhauser

Iā€™m surprised she didnā€™t mention that they finally showed the seatbelts. Cassie might have but I donā€™t remember her mentioning it but the Dr Carol Marcus from ST-II callback. After the final movie there are quite a few series to watch but I doubt sheā€™ll watch them since people have channels that take years to react to all the Star Trek series. I donā€™t think sheā€™ll want to take up all that time to watch the other series unless she only watches key episodes like she did with the other series. The series I really want her to watch all the episodes is Picard. Especially season three. But weā€™ll have to wait and see since PIB is primarily a movie reaction channel. In any case, it was a fun reaction, although I wish she talked about it at the end as much as she comments at the beginning of movies.

Mojo One Thousand

Hi Cassie, your reaction to Anton Yelchin appearing on-screen for the first time in this was quite precious. He does get to be Chekov one more time. If I have this correct, his untimely death occurred during post-production but prior to the premiere/release of "Star Trek: Beyond". I do agree that the casting of the main 3 characters was very good, but all the main characters were cast well, and I did have a feeling that "Scotty " would be your spirit animal for the journey through these movies.

Darren Harrison

Probably the best thing I can say about this movie is that it is so much better than the third movie. As a non-Star Trek fan I enjoyed this film very much, which is something I cannot say about the next one in the series.

Clay F
>>160347129

@Neighboourhood. Not at all. Star Wars & Star Trek are stellar franchises. Star Trek franchise reinvigorated by the genious Abrams. Complete excitement for each new project.

Clay F

People comment that the US population increased and the China audience for movies grew, but it is what it is ā€“ this movie is the most financially successful Star Trek movie in history. Not surprising. Excellent movie. Abrams is a master storyteller and a great director. Below are Star Trek movies ranked by Worldwide Box Office in millions $ adjusted for inflation. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) ā€“ 623 Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) ā€“ 596 Star Trek (2009) ā€“ 558 Star Trek Beyond (2016) ā€“ 444 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) ā€“ 377 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) ā€“ 308 Star Trek: First Contact (1996) ā€“ 289 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) ā€“ 260 Star Trek: Generations (1994) ā€“ 247 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) ā€“ 221 Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) ā€“ 214 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) ā€“ 176 Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) ā€“ 116 Source: www. movieweb.com/star-trek-movies-how-much-they-made/ The so-called fans at Creation Entertainment's annual Las Vegas Star Trek convention in 2013 who bad-mouthed the movie are a tiny bitter minority of established Trek fans or Trekkies. This movie is liked by established Trek fans and new fans alike. Abrams truly grew the audience. Established Trek fans are grateful to Abrams for reinvigorating the franchise. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) honors the Star Trek franchise.

Matt Rose

Happy you liked it. From a 'whiz bang stuff blows up' point of view, it's pretty great. The acting is also quite good. But this is the stupidest entry in the entire franchise. The film is filled with massive plot holes and world-breaking decisions that cause the entire film...and the franchise...to fall apart. SPOILER WARNING: - Magic blood. Khan's blood can not only heal, it can restore life. That would make Khan's (and his crew's) blood the single most valuable commodity in the universe. The Federation would immediately put all of them on ice and just harvest their blood in order to achieve immortality. - Khan's crew also has this blood. Spock didn't need to chase after Khan at the climax...all they needed to do was thaw out another crew member and harvest his/her blood. They could have chased after Khan later. - Khan does a point to point transfer from Earth to Kronos (the Klingon homeworld) directly. This is teleportation across the galaxy. If this tech exists, why do we have spaceships? They're now obsolete. - San Francisco is absolutely flattened when Khan crashes the mega ship into it at the climax of the film. Millions upon millions of people would have been killed in that crash and subsequent slide through the city. No mention is made of the staggering death toll afterwards. - Khan's 'plan' is to get the Star Fleet brass together and wipe them out. OK. Good thing this super-secret meeting happened at the top of a building that's exposed vs...oh, I dunno, a secret and secure bunker? - You're gonna tell me that the facility where they were making this mega super-sized Star Fleet vessel (name escapes me) isn't going to have some sort of security system in place to catch Scotty's ship when he comes to spy on it? They'd have detected him and shot him down instantly. - When Kirk goes in to fix the engines to save the day, what's he do? He's swinging on a pipe and kicking the crap out of delicate machinery to get it to move back into position. Kicks it. Repeatedly. At least in the far superior ST2:TWOK, Spock appears to be carefully re-aligning things...here, it's just kick the ^@#$ out a piece of precision machinery until it clicks into place. And so on. Just obnoxiously stupid. Most films fall apart when you give them some thought afterwards, but this one actually falls apart while you're watching it. That said, the film is so fast paced and well made that you can also just sit back, 'turn your brain off', and roll with the pretty great action on display.

Matt Rose
>>160352374

I respectfully disagree on it being 'liked'. Most Trekkies I know hate this one.

Avastrasza

I personally really like this movie. Yes, it has plotholes and some silly things, but so did the older Star Trek movies, so you just have to roll with it. Kahn's blood being able to revive dead people is pretty far fetched. Though I expect its only with certain ways of death. Like organ failures and so on. Probably not a laserblast to the face. People ridicule the KAHN yell from Spock in this movie, but I really feel it. It gives me goosebumps every time, and Kahn then appearing in that giant ship, that is some good movie making.

Clay F

Glad you loved the movie. I liked your comments. Enjoyed your reaction.

Dan M

Yay! This is a perfect popcorn flick for a cold, blustery January day. Canā€™t wait to throw myself under a blanket, turn down the lights (into darknessā€¦bah dah bump), and enjoy one of my favorite Star Trek movies with you. I know there are a lot of issues that Trek fans have with this movie, but from an entertainment standpoint, this movie is solid gold.

Dean Holt
>>160343843

Iā€™ve never thought it was the worst film and tbh the more a watch it the more I actually enjoy it for what it is. But if I had to rank it from the 13 movies it would be around 8th. As Iā€™d definitely have it in front of the last two TNG movies, ST 5 and the worst Trek movie ever made The Motion Picture.

Just Plain Bob
>>160358029

Since weā€™re playing with numbers/box office and pretending that has anything at all to do with measuring the quality of art, hereā€™s a few numbers. Star Trek Into Darkness cost $190 million to make and grossed $467 million worldwide, a return on investment of 2.45. The original Friday the 13th grossed $59.8 million ($240 million at 2013 ticket prices) and cost $550,000 to make, a return on investment of 108, making it 44 times as successful. So using your logic, the original Friday the 13th is 44 times as good as Star Trek Into Darknessā€¦which is actually about right. Not because Friday the 13th is so good, but because Star Trek Into Darkness is so bad. Oh yes, and about that Star Trek convention, attendance is typically in the neighborhood of 55,000. Hardly a handful of people. They are devoted fans. But, if it makes you happy to belittle people that love a franchise, you be you - but I gotta wonder why differing opinions bother you so much.

Laura Thornley

People dunk on this movie, and sure while there are some issues the casting isn't one of them. Into Darkness is when I think the cast absolutely nail in their characters and how they are subtly different to the original crew (rather then doing their best impressions). I actually like Kirk in this movie (whereas I found him unlikable in the first)!

Chris Thom

Not totally sure how it works...but how fun would it be for you and Carly to visit the Sundance Film Festival? You've seen some Robert Redford movies on the channel...and he established it first, I believe. Don't know how hard it is to get tickets to a premiere, or maybe you've already been. For all I know you go every year. But how fun would it be to take a camera (and us) and get the journalist/critic treatment?

Clay F
>>160358029

I never equated financial success with being good, but simply pointed out that Star Trek Into Darkness is the most financially successful Star Trek movie. I did imply that being an excellent movie may have helped the movie become a financial success, but never equated financial success with being good. The movie is excellent -- even if it wasn't financially successful. William Shatner is the one who made fun of Trekkies, not me. Differing opinions don't bother me at all. I welcome them. It is the bitter tiny minority of Trek fans who trash the Kelvin films with such zeal who are bothered to the extreme by a different opinion, and who in their hate want to cram their blind opinion down everyone's throat.

Mike Lemon
>>160358029

Numbers from release (Wikipedia)- Budget, production- $190 million, so, rough math, it would need to make $380 million to break even (a little higher with China). Box office, world- $467 million minus 1/2 China's $26 million equals $454 million. (studios get 25% of China box office compared to about 50% elsewhere) So this movie cleared $87 million. But wait, we still have taxes, advertising, etc. All told, this movie made $30 million. So, lets compare Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness (rounding)- Khan- Budget - $12 million ($39 million adjusted, simple inflation calculator) Box office - $97 million, 8 times the budget ($317 million) Darkness- Budget - $190 million ($257 million) Box office - $467 million, 2.5 times the budget ($632 million) Khan was over three times a better return on investment than Darkness.

Just Plain Bob
>>160358029

You threw out some numbers immediately followed by your opinion that JJ Abrams is a master storyteller. The implication was clear. Donā€™t backtrack now. Or at least have the grace to openly admit that box office tallies have nothing to do with subjective judgment about art. Comic books are more popular than Van Gogh. So what? Again and again you belabor the point of box office and website review aggregate numbers. Utterly meaningless in measuring quality.

Mike Lemon
>>160358029

"in 2013 who bad-mouthed the movie are a tiny bitter minority of established Trek fans or Trekkies." I will post this again, since it still applies- @Clay - I love how you intentionally don't hear the argument so you can scream "blinded by hate". The "old timers" are saying Trek used to be black cherry ice cream- kinda niche, but the people who love it really love it- and Abrams (and Kurtzman) made Trek vanilla- nothing special, just the plain flavor everyone likes. The same can be applied to all the "nerd culture" that became mainstream slop. Star Wars, D&D, Marvel, etc.

Laura Thornley
>>160362607

And the issue with the Prime Directive is "don't interfere" due to unforeseen consequences - but also to set an example to other advanced civilisations to not do the same for less then pure reasons.

Doug Fisher
>>160358029

It really isn't though Clay. When you take inflation and number of theatres (double for Abrams) into account it isn't even close (this is not even considering population growth). Per theater "Into Darkness" slips to 9th overall. When you look at profitability, "Into Darkness" (which had by far that largest production budge of all Trek films) is even closer to the bottom (dropped a spot to 10th overall) and it lost money (all of Abrams Trek lost money). So, your statement is a little disingenuous, misleading, as well as hints at conformation bias. The majority of Trek fans don't like this movie or Abrams Trek because he is a hack (certainly not a "master story teller and a great director") who can only copy and paste, then slap a "Star Trek" label on it (just as he did with Star Wars). This was just a rehashed "Wrath of Khan" and a poor one at that. It doesn't mean you can't like it, but it is not a good movie and it is definitely not good Trek. Being a fan of Trek does not mean you have to like/love anything with the Star Trek logo on it; in fact it is the opposite, it should mean demanding more of a film or show to earn that right. Abrams did not grow the audience, he and his disciple Kurtzman have destroyed the IP. There is a reason that Abrams Trek 4 has not been made yet, why Kurtzman's Trek floundered badly, and why Paramount is bankrupt, laying off people in droves, essentially shut down, and about to be bought out.

Doug Fisher
>>160347129

@Neighbourhood... You'll have to forgive Clay, he tends to live in his own little world and drinks a lot of Kool-Aid.

Clay F
>>160358029

Bob, I agree that box office tallies have nothing to do with subjective judgment about art. Most of my favorite movies have low box office tallies. I hear over and over from the Abram's haters that the Kelvin films were a financial failure -- that is simply not true. Mike, you can live in the past, that's fine. You apparently don't mind being left behind. You are in the definite minority. As for your numbers, I agree that the low-budget Khan did well but Darkness did excellent financially in this day and age. Even your numbers indicate that Darkness was not a failure financially. I chose to go by gross -- you chose to go by return on investment -- which is fine -- Kahn being low budget (which you can tell when watching the movie) gives Kahn the edge on return on investment. But even your numbers show that Darkness made more money than Kahn including after subtracting expenses and adjusting for inflation.

Doug Fisher
>>160343843

I was with you until your last sentence. STTMP is the worst Trek?! SMH To each their own I guess.

Chris Thom
>>160352374

All in all these were a good, fun, exciting introduction to the lore and characters. If the new audience digs them, they have a decent foundation to build on before going back and revisiting the classics of the franchise. They did their job, I think.

Doug Fisher
>>160342456

@Stick Figure Studios It is called Member Berries and Abrams uses them like lens flares. @Clay F You are all over this comment section spouting the same nonsense Clay. "Into Darkness" is not the "most successful" film in Star Trek history, it is actually 10th overall in terms of success and it lost money.

Doug Fisher
>>160341896

While I agree with your assessment... that is not a high bar to get over. Glad you like it though.

Doc Larry

This movie was a reworking of the character Khan Noonien Singh not the best Star Trek movie. Using scenes from other movies. Considering the Star Trek is a different timeline different cannon. It had some entertaining features. Thatā€™s the best I could say.

Scott Macaulay

Iā€™m glad you enjoyed it. I enjoy these JJ Treks in the sense that they made it a distinctive timeline from the 'Prime" timeline that we know and love. Probably why they did that. We don't have to feel guilty cheating on the TOS crew lol

Clay F
>>160358029

Doug, you stated: "The majority of Trek fans don't like this movie or Abrams Trek." That is simply not true. You have no basis for that statement. You are in the minority blinded by your hate. The Kelvin films are excellent Trek movies appreciated by established Trek fans and new fans alike. Abrams definitely grew the audience. Star Trek (2009) sold more tickets at the box office than any previous Star Trek movie, and received critical acclaim. Of all the Star Trek movies, Star Trek (2009) receives the highest ratings by both critics and users. Just not enough bitter old-timers to drag down the critic/user ratings for Star Trek (2009). Abrams and his disciple Kurtzman reinvigorated the Star Trek franchise, which was essentially dead after Nemesis. The Abrams Trek 4 movie will happen once Pine and Quinto get on board. Paramount still planning Trek 4, but latest news mostly focuses on prequel production, which I am excited about. The prequel is set to be released next year. Director: Toby Haynes, who also directed Andor and Black Mirror Screenwriter: Seth Grahame-Smith, who also wrote The Lego Batman Movie Producer: J.J. Abrams Setting: Pre-Kelvin timeline, before Star Trek (2009) Focus: Humanity's early contact w/aliens and formation of the United Federation of Planets

Mannygogou

Wait wut? Cassie you son of a gun I'm in!

Walter

Broken record time - feel free to move along and skip this post - Cassie, you should watch more Trek - you are clearly a big fan! Deep Space Nine is the next show...it's beloved...it's got all the Trek goodness plus fathers and sons and more Worf...

Walter

I just noticed the phaser over Cassie's head. I don't know - it made me happy

Mannygogou
>>160367845

"Cassie you daughter of a mutt, I'm in!" denoting full approval šŸ˜ŠšŸ˜„

scott osborne

yes its sad Anton Yelchin death was a freak accident he was only 27 he was born in russia unlike Walter Koenig the OG Pavel Chekov who is an american Anton Yelchin died shortly before star trek Beyond came out. im so glad you kept to the film order and waited to watch these 3 reboots till last. if you had watched these ones first it would of messed everything up and confused you

Clay F

The Abrams Trek 4 movie will happen once Pine and Quinto get on board. Paramount still planning Trek 4, but latest news mostly focuses on prequel production, which I am excited about. The prequel is set to be released next year. Director: Toby Haynes, who also directed Andor and Black Mirror Screenwriter: Seth Grahame-Smith, who also wrote The Lego Batman Movie Producer: J.J. Abrams Setting: Pre-Kelvin timeline, before Star Trek (2009) Focus: Humanity's early contact w/aliens and formation of the United Federation of Planets

Steve Mercier

So, the 'I am Khan!' line only really works if you're familiar with the original Star Trek series...but so what. This movie is fun. Cumberbatch is spectacular in the roll, and it's always good to see Peter Weller again. And Scotty gets more to do! Just fun.

Joe R

There is a cameo by Chris Doohan, James Doohan's (Scotty) son. He is the transporter tech you see operating the transporter.

Celeste McAllister

I liked him as Dr.Strange,He was all to unbelievable as Khan....

Cassie Tremblay
>>160358882

hahaha nnnooooo! Ok you do have some valid points. My counters for #1-I be they didnt tell starfleet command about the whole magic blood thing, they knew they would corrupt it so they kept it to themselves, even spock, who learned sometimes you have to use his human side and fudge the truth....ok you have a point about thawing out his crew, but maybe khan is like the ultimate leader and the best blood and the only one strong enough to bring back life....I thought he just poin to point to another spaceship? hmmm ya dont love he teleported to another planet, is that what scotty was saying was his technology?......i also thought about the damage and how many would have died, they should have mentioned that in the 1 year later speech......and about the warp core, sometimes machinery does need a good kick?

Mike Lemon
>>160347129

Where are you seeing ovations at a movie theater? I've been to a hundred movies and have never heard an ovation, I don't think I have even heard a smattering of clapping. Around here, people just get up and leave. They might talk to their friends for a minute before leaving, but not much more.

Doug Fisher
>>160358029

I am not "in the minority" Clay. I am certainly not hateful so there is no chance of being "blinded by my hate". The Kelvin films suck but you are free to like them. That isn't hate, that is objectivity and discernment. I am basing it on observation, facts, and viewing numbers. You should look into that sometime. Though, you are also free to keep worshiping at the feet of Abrams. He has fooled a lot of people and you strike me as a gullible person so it is not surprising he has fooled you too. I love how you just dive into your conformation bias without shame. It is impressive really. The only reason they sold more tickets is due to a doubling of movie theaters and a huge jump in populations (40% more pop. during "Star Trek" compared to "STtMP"). While "Star Trek" (2009) finished 3rd in Box Office to population ratio, it dropped to 8th in per theater Box Office. What does that tell you Clay?! It tells me you cherry pick your data to fit your ego and narrative. SMH I don't even take you statements of "acclaim" seriously anymore since retelling you how bad and biased those review sites are is just beating a dead horse. "Bitter old-timers"?! ROFL Dude... just have a look at the viewing numbers of your beloved Kurtzman's Trek. They were awful to begin with and quickly dropped off a cliff for each series. Again, why else do you think D+ is a giant money pit that is going out of business?! It is what happens when you cast bad writers instead of hiring the best ones or at least competent ones for your tent pole IP. Dancing and K-Pop singing Klingons... come on man, even you can't defend that crap (though I have no doubt you will try). Yeah, Abrams Trek 4 will happen about the same time as Rian Johnson's trilogy is made. They have been saying it is close since 2016. I realize you have the rose colored glasses on with Abrams but I will let you in a secret... he is full of B.S. Sooo... basically Abrams is going to badly rip off "Enterprise". What a shock. He, like you, has no shame, no creativity, or independent thought. Do I want good new Trek?! Absolutely!! Do I think that Abrams can deliver that?! Not a snowballs chance in Hell. Though, you seem to love mediocrity so I am sure you will love it... if it ever gets made that is, which I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Clay F
>>160358882

These so-called plot holes are not massive. The movie is not a documentary that explains every detail. If you to want to see massive plot holes, see the TOS movies, that's for sure. This movie is not obnoxious/stupid but is excellent. Respectfully, you can't see the forest because of the trees.

Clay F
>>160358029

Doug -- I feel sorry for you in your isolated bubble in the minority. I see you still are a conspiracy theorist with the review sites. By the way, there was a moon landing in 1969. 502,000 users at IMDb gave this movie an average rating of 7.7 Ranked by IMDb user rating: 1. Star Trek (2009) 7.9 2. ST II (1982) 7.7 2. ST Into Darkness (2013) 7.7 4. ST IV (1986) 7.3 5. ST VI (1991) 7.2 6. ST III (1984) 6.6 7. ST (1979) 6.4 8. ST V (1989) 5.5

TheSingulatarian

The weird things the Abrams crew glom onto is well weird. Shatner once got into an argument with an audio engineer while recording an audiobook or video game cut scene or something over the correct pronunciation of "Sabotage". Now everything about Kirk references that. I think they may have autism.

Ike

At the risk of being IN-WISIBLE and as a fellow Trekkie (youā€™re definitely a Trekkie too!) I enjoyed the reaction way more than I enjoyed this one in theaters. This began what I call, ā€œJJ Abramsā€™ Derivative Streakā€ - meaning he reuses original plot lines to create something ā€œNewā€. E.G., Abramsā€™ ā€œTHE FORCE AWAKENSā€ in Star Wars would be next up which was strongly derivative of ā€œA NEW HOPEā€. However, I agree that the actors here do a TERRIFIC job of channeling the original TOS characters and thatā€™s worth acknowledging! Iā€™m sure others have covered the Fun Facts: - like Dr. Carol Marcus (mother of David and inventor of the Genesis Project). - they reversed Spockā€™s sacrifice for the ship to make it Kirkā€™s, ignoring ā€œThe Good of the Manyā€ vs ā€œThe Good of the Oneā€ arguments in Star Trek II & III. Lots of good stuff here to like! I just wished it was an original story. Again, love these reactions!

Clay F
>>160348756

Bast on our past discussions, I think you would like her full reaction to this movie. She said she loved this movie, and I believe her based on her response. Watch and listen to her, not so much the movie, maybe while you multi-task at something (e.g., work). The YT edit, while saving your time, will undoubtedly not be as good of an experience. But, again, does save time.

Clarence Newman
>>160348756

I do still have the DVD, and you HAVE just suggested I dilute the monotony of my workday by watching the whole thing with Cassie. Hmmm. That would be 2 hours of dilution instead of 40 minutes or so, wouldn't it? You're a wise man, Clay. I'm in.

Clay F
>>160347550

The Abrams "Star Trek 4" will happen but has lower priority than the prequel "origin story" film that Paramount is to release next year, which I am excited about.

Clay F
>>160347129

I've seen rousing ovations in movie theaters at the conclusion of excellent movies (like this one). Doug, you are the one in your own little world. So you do believe that outside your bubble, this movie received a rousing ovation in the theater?

Mike Lemon
>>160358882

@Clay- You're starting to be an ... well, rule 1 (edit- wrong rule out of habit). You are telling people what opinions they are allowed to have and insisting yours is the only correct take. "Respectfully, you can't see..." And you can't see a rational disagreement because of either your hate of people that don't like "new" Trek (and/or J.J.) and/or your love of "new" Trek (and/or J.J.).

Clay F

The so-called plot holes (if any) in this movie are nothing compared to the massive plot holes in the TOS movies. For instance, consider ST II: The Wrath of Kahn: 1. Kahn recognizes Chekov during the first act scene in Ceti Alpha V. Khan specifically says that he "never forgets a face," and remembers Chekov's name. In the TOS episode "Space Seed," Chekov was nowhere to be found, nor was his character even on board the Enterprise at that particular time. Iā€™ve seen rationales in an effort to support it (fill in the plot hole) but are a reach. 2. Another example, which I always cringe at when rewatching The Wrath of Kahn, is when Scotty carries Preston to the bridge. Suddenly, Scotty emerges from the turbolift carrying young cadet Preston in his arms, which makes no sense. Why would Scotty not immediately rush Preston to sickbay, especially because Preston is still alive? Had Scotty not deviated to the bridge, Preston might have stood a chance of surviving. The list goes on.

Tater

You don't need to apologize for liking these movies.

Matt Rose
>>160358882

Hey, if you like the movie, more power to you. It'd be a boring world if we all liked the same things. Also, on a purely 'stuff blows up in a cool way' level, the film absolutely delivers in a big way. It's absolutely a well made film at a production level, it's just the blasted script that does an embarrassing crappie flop when you give it even the slightest scrutiny.

Walter

I have been a Star Trek fan my whole life, and that's half a decade (edit: D'oh! meant to say Century - leaving that in because it's funny) now. I know the complaints leveled against these films, and I even agree with some of them. But these films are just damn fun. And the cast is fantastic. They are different Star Trek adventures, but they are still great Star Trek adventures.

Matt Rose
>>160378679

Very few films are flawless when it comes to plotholes. Valid as those two examples are, they don't break the movie. I'm not attacking you for liking STID. Again, it's a very well made film at a production level featuring some superb acting and action. I can appreciate the care that went into making it, I just think that the script is absolute pants.

Matt Rose
>>160370537

BC is awesome as DOCTOR STRANGE. To that end, I rate the first DOCTOR STRANGE film as one of my personal favorites in the MCU.

Walter
>>160378679

the only thing that makes me laugh, is the clumsy insertion of the tribble. In the middle of a literal crisis, Kirk suddenly, as an aside, asks Bones what he's doing with that tribble. It's so poorly inserted. Bones might as well have responded, "I'm prepping him for the final act miracle reveal". I don't mind "science magic" being used to save Kirk, after all, "science magic" was used to save Spock originally. They could have introduced the idea better though. Still love the movie though.

Matt Rose
>>160358882

Thanks for the reply! Again, I'm glad you liked it. Enjoyment is totally subjective and I won't begrudge anyone for enjoying a film that I don't personally care for.

Mike Lemon
>>160379677

"my whole life, and that's half a decade now." Don't you have to be over 18 to use Patreon? (joking)

Matt Rose
>>160379325

Agreed 100%. Enjoyment is subjective and I'm not going to bash anyone for enjoying this one. More power to you. I wish I could but no big deal.

Walter
>>160379677

LOL. I meant Century. That's the senility settling in

Mike Lemon
>>160342153

Ohh... Because of Cumberbatch. That took me way too long to get. I was wondering why this made you recommend the Downey Jr. movies.

Matt Rose
>>160379677

It gets us all. Come on in to the old folks home, we've saved you spot. Grab a gin and tonic from the wet bar.

Chris Thom
>>160375205

As much heat as George Lucas gets, he definitely created something new and very different with his prequels. With a ton of new characters, ships, planets, locales, etc. While giving a whole politics lesson to boot.

McShades
>>160378679

In the wrath of khan book, it showed Preston was Scotty's nephew. I'm not sure why they cut that out of the movie, maybe because of time but that's why Scotty was so emotional. I'm not sure why he brought him to the bridge though, it could have been his station was close to the bridge and the shock of his nephew being hurt he went to the bridge for help since it was closer, only a guess though. As for Khan knowing Chekov, given Chekov was a standard member of the crew, even though he wasn't shown on that episode, it wouldn't be a far stretch that khan ran into him on the ship off screen.

Chris Thom
>>160375051

They also put in a few random Conan O' Brien easter eggs in the movies. Just because Conan asked them to. lol

Rick Rodriguez

No more fighting amongst us fans! This is what Khan wants!

McShades

You are correct in saying that the OG movies were mostly action with the exception of Star Trek Voyage Home, which had the message of not hunting whales to extinction. Even on the TV shows you had your share of purely action episodes, so IMO these new Star Trek movies are not out of place just because they're all action.

Clay F
>>160378679

Preston being Scotty's nephew would make even more sense that Scotty would rush Preston to sickbay. Kahn meeting a minor member of the crew off screen seems a stretch to me. In any case, if one is willing to stretch (e.g., fill in a blank with a convenient detail, such as Kahn meeting the minor crew member Chekov off screen), could resolve most or all plot holes in Into Darkness. Haters of this movie are so focused on imaginary plot holes, which are more of a lack of detail or a dramatic license. No more plot holes in this movie than any of the TOS movies. A few plot holes don't really bother me. Not fatal to the movie.

Michael West

Great reaction Cassie. I like this movie, I think it could stand on it's own as a space action film but the homage to "Wrath of Kahn" was a good plot line. I know there are detractors, but for me it was entertaining. I agree on all the casting choices. Scotty is amazing. I think casting Alice Eve as a young Dr. Carol Marcus was really spot on as well. Overall an entertaining movie and wonderful reaction.

Caomhan84
>>160369151

At this point I don't think that the fourth movie is going to happen. There have been like four different versions of it since 2016. How many different directors and writers? Tarantino even had a writer's room assembled, with his bonkers idea launching off of "A Piece of the Action." At some point I stopped keeping track, but I want to say that at least two other scripts have come and gone since then. They lost Chris Hemsworth... He was actually going to be in the fourth movie , but he bounced because they couldn't finalize anything. It's a shame since the cast is so great, but like Zoe Saldana says... They have to get moving on it. They're all getting older and the schedule is getting more packed.

Ian A

These movies I really enjoy. They are completely different from the series and that's fantastic. Chris Pine as Kirk is better for me than Shatner..i know..šŸ˜Æ Everyone is just cast soo well. Thanks for all the wonderful videos! Also if you want to see more of the actor who plays Chekov, Anton Yelchin, I highly recommend "Odd Thomas".

BibbitduBois

Some people hate on these, but I don't get it. I'm a long time Trek fan and I love them. Again I have to say that I can't tell you how happy I am that you are going on this Star Trek journey. BTW, Dr. Carol Marcus is the same character from Wrath of Khan, eg. Kirk's baby mama so there is at least some hint of Kirk getting the love interest you've been wanting for him.

Just Plain Bob
>>160391618

Kirk got married in the original series. Iā€™d call that a pretty serious love interest.

Dan M

I think if anyone who has issues with this movie just accepts that it takes place in a different timeline (the Kelvin timeline) than the timeline from the original series, and that the characters and events are going to be slightly different because it does take place in a different timeline, then they may actually enjoy the movie.

Mannygogou

Hooray!, I just finished watching šŸ‘šŸ˜„ Good one!, I'm glad Cassie enjoyed these two movies. We must remember these were what she wanted to watch a long time ago - this was well earned! šŸ˜Š I'm also glad we maneuvered her into watching Galaxy Quest at the protests of you know, gate-keepers. That was the one loophole that could fly. The word had been given Cap'n.

Just Plain Bob
>>160395255

I think the issues most of this movieā€™s detractors have are unrelated to the timeline, but with what we consider shoddy storytelling. Thereā€™s also the fact that it strays far afield from the ethos of the Rodenberry vision of Trek. With TOS and Next Gen, we were given thoughtful stories that asked deeper questions, which JJ Abrams deemed ā€œtoo philosophicalā€ for his taste. Of course, in his defense, Abrams also explicitly stated that he never set out to make a Star Trek film - just something heā€™d like. He also admitted heā€™d never watched all of the earlier movies and expressed surprise when told there were ten of them. I donā€™t object to the stories they tell. Dumb popcorn fun can be just that - fun. But why slap the ā€œStar Trekā€ label on it? The obvious answer is to take advantage of brand recognition for money, which isnā€™t a good enough reason IMO. The sad fact is that ā€œThe Orvilleā€, a second rate sci-fi comedy that shamelessly rips off earlier Trek, is the closest thing to the Rodenberry vision since Rick Berman (a Rodenberry confidant and collaborator) gave up the reins on the franchise in the early 2000s.

Clay F
>>160369151

Paramount is still pushing Star Trek 4. I would not give up on it. Paramount has prioritized the prequel but will do Star Trek 4. When the time comes, they will resolve issues you allude to.

Clarence Newman
>>160391618

He was well happy with married life too. How many husbands roll out of their tents in the morning, raise both arms to the sky and exclaim "I don't....deserve....this happiness!"?

Matt Rose
>>160378679

The DC/Extended cut of TWOK had some additional dialog establishing he was Scotty's nephew as well.

danzthename

I'm with you, Cassie. I'm a die hard fan of the original TOS material, but I still love these movies. They are undeniably fun and well made...and that music! They really capture that old feeling of the Enterprise crew being like a family to each other.

Clarence Newman
>>160378679

I have a watertight theory on why Khan recognised Chekov, Clay, and it goes something like this. It's true that Chekov did not appear on our screens until series 2, but that was only because it took him that long to graduate to bridge duty. In season 1, he was a wet-behind-the-ears ensign fresh out of the academy and was working the lower decks at the time Khan came on board. They met in the rec room a couple of times and shared some wodka.

Tech Citizen
>>160352374

Initially I felt total disrespected when "Khan" was revealed along with the reverse death roles and Spock yelling "KHAN". Otherwise a great Star Trek Action film. But overtime I learned to appreciate a different way to tell a story. Will I love it more than ST II:TWOK? No, but I will continue to enjoy re-watch. The cold opening scene is just too cool! Too many times a beloved story is told differently than the original masterpiece, or a beloved actor's appearance is replaced by someone totally not expected, and fans BULK. The latest gripe is HBO's The Last of Us Part I's Ellie. I learned to be open to all interpretations as art form, which makes me more positive and appreciate more.

Brian McGovern
>>160343858

That is the good thing get about opinions. Each person can have their own opinion, does not mean all other opinions are wrong.

Mikey

On a side note: Are you ever going to watch Your Name? I feel like you've talked about it before and with it being one of the best love stories ever and knowing yours (and Karly's) tastes, I'm actually shocked you haven't reacted to it yet.

Rick Rodriguez
>>160395255

The plot of Into Darkness is trek like though. Military overreach, ethics questions are very Trek. Think Deep Space Nine. Just my take.

Clay F
>>160401004

It's a cartoon, right? While I am not big on cartoons, I do want to watch it. I want to give cartoons more of a chance -- I feel like I may be missing out. Your Name is on my watchlist. I've also though about watching Arcane series?

Just Plain Bob

Red Letter Media did a nice critique of this film when it first came out. Itā€™s long, but good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs&t=1667s

Mikey
>>160401004

Clay, Just keep in mind that Your Name is a love story so I'd even recommend watching it with a date or partner. I'm only recommending it to kassie because I know how much she likes love stories Arcane is really good! There's a lot going on in the second season, so if you get there take your time.

Shad Kanyak

Your film journey has come a long way when you recognized Admiral Marcus. He was Murphy/RoboCop.

Neighbourhood Watch Alliance
>>160358029

@Clay, We can disagree on the finer points of a movie, or how to interpret financial success, but please tell me you are not going to try and convince anyone the review sites - including IMDB which is owned by Amazon and provably 'adjusted' the Rings of Power scores and deleted negative reviews - are free of tampering & manipulation in favour of studio interests and left wing California politics?

Pickupthepieces76

Of course it's ok to like these movies. They are pretty good. Star Trek for most of their years have been about exploring the different aspects of humanity through the voyages of the Enterprise crew (and others). They did that with a mix of drama, comedy and action in a scifi world. The episodic show format was perfectly sited for this. They always had trouble translating that special ST mix to the big screen. That big format kinda forced the makers to choose one genre which Box Office always demanded had to be action. This was hit and miss as we all know. But it was still with the OG cast and they did try to keep the ST essence in it and at least give the main characters a good arc. These 'new' movies are full on action and pretty good at that, but they feel more generic and the furthest removed from the essence of what Star Trek is or at least what I like about Star Trek. Since I like all kinds of movies, especially scifi, I do still enjoy them, but for me personally I enjoy (re)watching some of the older ST movies much more. Although nothing beats the ST tv shows of course.

Clay F
>>160358029

Neighborhood, there is no evidence that IMDb scores are manipulated. Point to a major new source that says otherwise. You get your info from Reddit? You think 9/11 was an inside job or that the Sandy Hook school shooting was fake?

Dave Thomas

One of my top 10 movies, for sure...

Neighbourhood Watch Alliance
>>160358029

IMDB were caught doing it in real time, just by civilians and online commentators documenting the scores' change and negative reviews being deleted. They were doing it on IMDB and Amazon's own website - considering they make the show it shouldn't be surprising Major news source? You think Washington Post care if the Rings of Power score is obviously inflated? Here's just the first video when I searched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDP1WLNkvHY Nice strawman arguments btw, having said that the pentagon site doesn't look like a plane crash to me

Marty McGee
>>160375205

This is an original story. The only thing it has in common with Space Seed or Wrath of Khan is that Khan is in it and the basic history of him and his crew having been frozen. Everything else that happened regarding Khan was completely different. Now the death was derivative, but at least they twisted it. I also like that we got a truly terrifying and ferocious version of Khan. As much as I appreciate Ricardo Montalban's Khan he didn't have that physically scary side.

FranciscoGios

Well this is why I became a Patreon again Cassie to your reaction channel, to watch you enjoy this awesome reboots, canā€™t wait for you to watch the third one and hear your thoughts . And sorry for not telling you in advance when I didnā€™t renew my subscription.

Johnny Bullis

Hey Cass.. glad youre enjoying these alt time line ST movies.. they were good. Not many people were fans of the idea of them taking what happened in The Wrath of Khan and flipping it around to where Kirk dies .. a lot of people thought it was a watered down version of TWOK especially since they brought back Kirk with the magic blood. It didnt have the same weight as the original movies because we got The Search for Spock in the original timeline. I have to say I liked what JJ did with this.. it was a little cheap to redo what was done but it worked on an emotional level. Im surprised you dont remember who Carol Marcus is... or at least it seemed you did.. she was the woman who Kirk had a son with in the original movies.. the one who died in TWOK.. thats where we got the KHAAAAAAAAN scream from in that one.. and it was Kirk who did it. Anyways.. Im glad you enjoyed the movie.

Just Plain Bob
>>160414187

Carol Marcus doesnā€™t die in TWOK. Kirk screams ā€œKahn!ā€ when Kahn tells him heā€™s leaving him trapped in the Genesis cave instead of killing him.

Ventena

I would love to see you react to the entirety of the new Star Trek shows. A lot of people don't like Discovery, but it has its moments, and you would probably enjoy it, at least I did, but more importantly, it provides important context for arguably the best new Star Trek show, Strange New Worlds, as it is a spinoff of Discovery.

Verteron

I grew up watching Star Trek TNG. I had the toys, posters, magazines, you name it, I was all in. Watched TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Owned all the movies, this was the first Star Trek movie I didn't buy when it was released on DVD.

Keith Jones

I remember really not liking this in the theater...really not liking it. Either I have mellowed with age, exposure to all the Trek since, or your reaction has me thinking maybe not so bad, probably a mix of the three. Great reaction os always

Cole Jennett

I think I liked this even more then I already had now that I have a bit more recent context from your journey through this universe. Hopefully it will also make me like ā€œBeyondā€ better too!

Cole Jennett
>>160391150

Like Crazy and 5 to 7 are also really good movies of his. I believe she has seen Like Crazy though.šŸ˜”

Just Plain Bob
>>160414187

Sorry. From the phrasing I thought you were saying Carol Marcus had died (ā€œā€¦the one who died in TWOKā€ immediately preceded by the explanation of who she is). At any rate, their son didnā€™t die in TWOK. He died in Search for Spock at the hands of the Klingons.

Chris Thom
>>160423826

Curious how you feel about the updated special effects, camera work and CGI. Does it make a difference to you as far as enjoying Star Trek? Or does it take anything away?

James Ford

very excited for beyond now, hope its up tomorrow

Ike
>>160375205

Not a copy, not a remake, but derivative. Derivative: (adj.) imitative of the work of another person. (n.) something that is based on another source. Itā€™s a big galaxy, but this is undoubtedly, undisputedly, a derivative of Wrath of Khan.

Keith Jones
>>160423826

As far as TOS I am a mixed bag the updated effects. They are better than what I grew up watching reruns in the 70-80ā€™s. But I do feel a loss of nostalgia without the old effects. As far as ā€œInto Darknessā€ the effects are great, just wanted a new story. They will be a finite number of Trek storylines and wanted to have a new adventure. This was the first time Iā€™ve seen it since the theater and think I wasnā€™t going ā€œretelling Khan, sighā€ and was able to enjoy the characters

rakesh
>>160342153

Maybe it's the Brit in me, but I prefer Cumberbatch's portrayal better. It's just a pity that out of the couple of seasons they had (a season being 3 episodes), there's always one episode that is just rubbish.

rakesh

Meh. it was ok, a good movie not a great movie. I dont think it was a story that needed to be retold tbh. here we are with a brand new verse crew, which started out with an orginal story and instead of going forwards went backwards. That and the fact that JJ vehmently denied that BC was not khan and that this was a not khan story, only it to be revealed it was Khan seemed just bait. Spocks death in Wraith of Khan was deserved. He had a TV series, one movie was a beloved character and no on really knew if he was coming back. None of tthos factored played into this. So it didnt feel earned, did anyone really think pine wouldnt be back? And whilst not a remake. You dont mess with a classic. Some you can remake sure. LIke highlander, things like Robocop, Total Recall, you just gotta leave well alone becuase they wont be surpased and it comes off as money grab. Its a pity they coudl have done a lot more. Gutted about Pike. An excellent character in the movies. ( also played well in tv by anton mount). Not a JJ hater. He has he fingers in a lot of pies. in a lot of shows and movies i have really liked ( and not liked). Like I said. Good not Great.

Jamie
>>160414187

I think they meant the son, David. But yeah, he didn't die either. He got done in pretty cold in TSFS

Jayson Phillips

You rem who Dr. Carol Marcus was from Star Trek 2 Wrath of Kahn?

Jayson Phillips

Anton Yelsin (Checkov) Had a movie called ODD Thomas I bet you will love to watch if you add it to the poles

Doug Fisher
>>160358029

@Neighbourhood Don't bother wasting your breath on Clay and his devotion to IMDB. His ego will not let him admit he is wrong. Everybody knows that those review sites delete negative reviews and employ bot farms for positive ones. Clay also won't acknowledge that the vast majority of the viewing public do not frequent those sites. Clay said it himself... he still believes in MSM, which demonstrates his gullibility and proclivity to drink the Kool-Aid . The only reason he cites IMDB is because it supports his weak narrative that modern reincarnations of once beloved IPs are "better". He ignores all relevant data that contradicts this claim. He is conformation bias personified.

David Freese

Everybody that is saying they didn't like going backwards for a new batch of stories ain't looking at what the writers Abrams and Paramount said they were doing. All 3 Kelvin movies had parallels to the first 3 Prime timeline movies. In the media leading up to all three movies they said that was their intention and I think k the only misstep was saying Cumberbatch wasn't Khan.

Doug Fisher
>>160358029

@Clay F Dude... I am not the one in the bubble. That would be you who ignores all evidence against your "majority" takes. You never address points that counter your narrative, you just regurgitate the same tired and misleading "information". The fact that you are incapable of giving an original thought also speaks to your bubble mindset. You want proof?! Go back through all the movie reviews and how many of your comments in them do not include an IMDB quote?! I am will to bet less than 5% (if not zero). I mean you are the one self-deluded into thinking that Abrams is a master storyteller and an excellent director/writer. Talk about your small bubbles. You realize that "conspiracy theory" has been weaponized in an attempt to discredit people revealing the truth. So, I guess it is apt that you would employ such a tactic. I am not sure why you cling to these false narratives and bad takes; maybe it is due to being a weak man, having a surface level thought process, or just plan ego. For whatever reason, I am the one that should and do feel sorry for you!

Clay F
>>160358029

Neighborhood ā€” I see you cited no major news source. You live my in your delusional world. Likewise, Doug is the paranoid guy who believes conspiracy theories over MSM. Doug, you spew so much gibberish. Nonsensical.

Justin Samlal

This is by leagues the worst Star Trek movie, but I'm going to enjoy watching it with Cass regardless

JPDotCom23

I love this movie, love that you were finally able to watch this, the best of the Kelvin timeline, much like 'First Contact' is the best of the TNG crew and like The Voyage Home', which is the best of the original crew. I do hope J.J. Abrams returns for the next one, which is highly doubtful but wishful thinking. This is a great bunch of actors, hope they can continue. These movies work if they use existing Star Trek bad guys, not create any new ones.

Joe M

Cassie please continue with Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Don Ross

This was so much better watching with you. Thanks for inviting us into your home.

Jasbro
>>160599206

Final Frontier will always be the worst movie, its fine you dont like this but saying it is the worst Star Trek movie is just wrong.

Jasbro

It is interesting you mentioned that the people who didnt like this movie complained it was too much action, while First Contact which is regarded as THE best movie was non stop action.

Justin Samlal
>>160599206

Nah I definitely prefer Final Frontier to Into Darkness! Final Frontier at least is aware that it's ridiculous!

Stephen Dias

On the one hand, when I saw this the first time, I thought, "we're doing Khan again, really?" I was hoping they'd explore something else in the Kelvin timeline, like some species they hadn't covered in other series/movies. I did, however, appreciate the different twists from the original stories. Also, of course, I love all the actors involved.

Clifton Owens

Thank you, Miss Cassie, for bringing so much joy to watching these movies again. You bring joy and laughter to all of us homebound senior citizens.

Rick Williams

Great Movie. Great Fun. Great Reaction. The people who complain about these new movies are biased. They refuse to except a new Star Trek. But this is a way to keep Star Trek alive. Otherwise, there would be no more Star Trek. Great news. They are working on a 4th Star Trek movie.

John A

I remember seeing this in the theater and I remember liking it more then the first one of the Kelvin Timeline movies. The lens flares were too much in the first movie and I did like they had Kahn in this new timeline, I did think Benedict Cumberbatch was too different from The Original Series, but I understand they wanted to surprise you that it was Kahn. Either way I enjoyed watching it again